Narrator: No, she won’t.
Yeah, I don’t see it.
As a matter of electoral politics, oil production is still popular in swing states like Pennsylvania, and having a noncommittal stance towards domestic oil companies might cause a few oil billionaires not to back Trump (whose own policies are a little bit too erratic and chaotic to allow the business world in general to count on profit/prosperity under a Trump term).
As a matter of policy, domestic oil production is an important tool in countering Russian and Saudi interests. Strong domestic oil production gives the United States more incentive to tighten restrictions on Russian sanctions (without hurting domestic economic interests), and in weakening Saudi price-setting power through OPEC.
Fracking is terrible for the environment. But there are reasons why energy policy looks to more than just environmental issues.
Not just Russia and Saudi, but also Iran and Venezuela.
Oh and hurting those producers helps the US economy as it is an oil and gas exporter.
At the same time lowering the US oil and gas consumption can solve that problem too.
Why do people put all their criticisms on a politician whose job is to be popular with people who make bad decisions, rather than the states and people in them forcing her hand?
Probably not, but she won’t gut the EPA either, and the Biden administration did send out truckloads of money to deal with oil and gas emissions in the form of Climate Pollution Reduction Grants, so she is clearly the better candidate on this issue.
I felt gross when she was talking about fracking at the debate. I thought she was going to take a harder stance and I’m quite disappointed.
She likely needs to win in Pennsylvania to win, and opposition to fracking would cost her votes there.
Attitudes in the state are changing, but not yet at the point where she can openly oppose fracking and win.
Different job now
